State of U.P v. Counsel for

2. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.381 of 2025, under Sections 119(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 109(1), 103(1), 351(3), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Nandgram, District- Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant alongwith four other named accused persons is stated to have committed murder of the deceased Rahul over a business dispute on the date of incident i.e. on 1.6.2025 at about 09:20 p.m.

5. One pellet injury was sustained by one Ashish, who happened to be present at the place of occurrence with the deceased person. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. It is true that one person was put to death in the incident and one Ashish had sustained pellet injuries, but the applicant is not the author of either of the injuries sustained. 2 BAIL No. 36400 of 2025

8. The deceased person has sustained two gunshot injuries and the role of shooting has been assigned to co-accused persons Nagendra Chaudhary and Manish Chaudhary.

9. The applicant has not been assigned the role of any active participation in the act rather he is stated to be present at the place of occurrence. The only role assigned to the applicant is subsequent exhortation to not leave the deceased person alive.

10. The CCTV footage was retrieved from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer and he had found the assailants Nagendra Chaudhary and Manish Chaudhary present at the place of occurrence alongwith the deceased person, but the presence of the applicant was not established.

11. In the said CCTV footage, neither the applicant is clearly visible nor the number of said car no. HR26CZ9628 is visible. The informant himself told the number of said car to be HR26CZ9628 and also that applicant was visible in it.

12. Subsequently, two more eye-witnesses, namely, Manoj Kumar and Ranveer Singh, have been roped in by the prosecution, who have also not assigned any overt act to the applicant.

13. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.6.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

14. The bail application has been opposed on the ground on the ground that the Investigating Officer is helping the accused persons and in their collusion had not taken in possession the video footage of the incident. Although the transcription mentioned indicates that applicant was present in the car. CONCLUSION:

15. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty" gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

16. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable 3 BAIL No. 36400 of 2025 doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

17. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

18. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that role of shooting the deceased person and even the injured person has been assigned to co-accused persons Nagendra Chaudhary and Manish Chaudhary and the applicant has not been assigned any overt act in the incident, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Rohit Sharma Alias Mantri, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

22. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 17, 2025 Vikas Verma (Krishan Pahal,J.) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.381 of 2025, under Sections 119(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 109(1), 103(1), 351(3), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Nandgram, District- Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant alongwith four other named accused persons is stated to have committed murder of the deceased Rahul over a business dispute on the date of incident i.e. on 1.6.2025 at about 09:20 p.m.

5. One pellet injury was sustained by one Ashish, who happened to be present at the place of occurrence with the deceased person. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. It is true that one person was put to death in the incident and one Ashish had sustained pellet injuries, but the applicant is not the author of either of the injuries sustained. 2 BAIL No. 36400 of 2025

8. The deceased person has sustained two gunshot injuries and the role of shooting has been assigned to co-accused persons Nagendra Chaudhary and Manish Chaudhary.

9. The applicant has not been assigned the role of any active participation in the act rather he is stated to be present at the place of occurrence. The only role assigned to the applicant is subsequent exhortation to not leave the deceased person alive.

10. The CCTV footage was retrieved from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer and he had found the assailants Nagendra Chaudhary and Manish Chaudhary present at the place of occurrence alongwith the deceased person, but the presence of the applicant was not established.

11. In the said CCTV footage, neither the applicant is clearly visible nor the number of said car no. HR26CZ9628 is visible. The informant himself told the number of said car to be HR26CZ9628 and also that applicant was visible in it.

12. Subsequently, two more eye-witnesses, namely, Manoj Kumar and Ranveer Singh, have been roped in by the prosecution, who have also not assigned any overt act to the applicant.

13. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.6.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

14. The bail application has been opposed on the ground on the ground that the Investigating Officer is helping the accused persons and in their collusion had not taken in possession the video footage of the incident. Although the transcription mentioned indicates that applicant was present in the car. CONCLUSION:

15. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty" gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

16. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable 3 BAIL No. 36400 of 2025 doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

17. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

18. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that role of shooting the deceased person and even the injured person has been assigned to co-accused persons Nagendra Chaudhary and Manish Chaudhary and the applicant has not been assigned any overt act in the incident, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Rohit Sharma Alias Mantri, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

22. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 17, 2025 Vikas Verma (Krishan Pahal,J.) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad